Description:
An email from the advertiser offered a rebate to its customers for completing at least two of the recommended upgrades that were listed in the advertisement. The offer was connected, with an asterisk, to a disclaimer at the bottom of the email stating that terms and conditions apply to specific rebates.
Additionally, a call-to-action to download the rebates and upgrades information was referenced and linked directly to a printable version, from the advertiser’s website, which included more details.
Complaint:
The complainant claimed the advertisement was misleading by omission because once he completed his two upgrades, he was denied eligibility for a rebate based on the fact that one of his upgrades had to be paired with one of another two specific upgrades in order to qualify. This, the complainant claimed, was a critical condition that was missing from the advertisement. In the complainant’s view, the condition should have been included in close proximity to the standalone upgrade that was included in the list of eligible upgrades.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the ad copy contained a symbol linking to associated disclosure that terms and conditions apply to specific rebates. The advertisement also instructed customers to visit the advertiser’s website for full details and provided direct access to the full terms and conditions and qualification criteria applicable. In addition, the language used in the advertisement consistently states that customers ‘may’ qualify for rebates, rather than guaranteeing eligibility. According to the advertiser, the broader context of their program and the customer journey are also relevant considerations. Furthermore, customers are required to enter into a contract pursuant to which they agree to the full terms and conditions that clearly set out the eligibility requirements.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
Council members discussed the matter at length and unanimously held that the advertisement omitted relevant information resulting in an advertisement that was deceptive or misleading.
In coming to that determination, Council members were of the view that a reasonable consumer would think the ineligible-upgrade counted as one of the two required upgrades in order to be eligible for the rebate because there was nothing in the advertisement to suggest such a hidden condition and there was no indication on this specific upgrade, such as use of a disclaimer symbol, that special conditions apply. As one Council member noted, “omitting the pairing requirement is misleading by omission”.
While the specific language used in the advertisement might have focused on softer language, such as ‘may’ qualify versus a ‘guarantee’ of eligibility in an effort not to overpromise, Council members understood said language to suggest that terms and conditions governing the offer existed, triggering consumers to go find them to determine eligibility, however, locating them was quite complicated. A consumer has to hunt for the information once they were directed from the advertisement to the advertiser’s webpage, in the view of Council, who also questioned why the URL in the advertisement did not link directly to the relevant terms and conditions governing such complex offerings.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b)
